Play "Cards Against Atheist Forums" online now!
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: 28th May 2017, 16:16

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
morality is subjective and people don't have free will
RE: morality is subjective and people don't have free will
(15th May 2017, 13:58)Catholic_Lady Wrote: There's been a few threads recently about free will and morality, so my apologies for starting another one. The thing is, they got me curious about something so I wanted to ask you guys. 

So first of all, 2 things:

1. It seems many of you hold the opinion that morality is subjective. Meaning there is no real, set in stone, right or wrong. Basically, if one person thinks a particular act is good, and another person thinks that same act is bad, nether one of these 2 people is actually correct. It's all just a matter of opinion, like one person thinking red is the best color and another thinking blue is. 

2. It also seems many of you hold the opinion that people don't actually have free will. Their acts are purely a result of circumstances and are not freely chosen. Basically the person could not have acted any differently because their action was only a result of their own inherent nature and whatever circumstances put them in the position to commit that act.

So my question is this... for those who feel both these things are true - if there is no real right or wrong, and if people don't have the freedom to choose their behavior - then why do you get angry about people acting (or thinking) any certain way? After all, not only is there no right or wrong anyway, but these people don't even choose to act as they do. 

So how can you justify being angry at the person who rapes, kills, steals, lies, cheats, is conservative, is religious, likes Trump, IS Trump, etc etc? Am I missing something?

I basically agree with that there is no objective morality. And I don't believe in free will, only the illusion of free will. Basically, I think we think we experience free will while we don't really. But that just means it comes down to a difference in how we wish to determine a term, it doesn't really matter. The world is what it is. And if we are to call our actions 'truly free' or only 'seemingly free', that still won't change one bit about the reality we live in. We are still to be held accounteable for our actions, otherwise coexistance and order would be impossible.
My own subjective take on morality being different than that of any other person but similar to most does not diminish why I feel angry if someone does something I or the collective deems immoral. I don't see why it should. What exactly is the problem of me being angry at someone who murders my friend, for example? Or even a random stranger on the street? The murderer knows the consequences of his actions, the sorrow and pain and loss and loss of life it brings with... Yet does it anyway. The action and the results are still there. The person that did it still did it. Even if there is free will or not. My reaction will still be there. I don't have 'free will' choose how to feel either, so how is that a hurdle for this exactly? 

Also I feel obliged to say that if there is a God that is all-knowing, all-powerful and created this entire world and all the people in it, the belief in 'true free will' should be impossible too. If you believe in a deity like that and in free will, I think you probably hold contradicting views.

(P.S. I didn't go through the entire thread. Sorry if my points have already been mentioned. But then again, you asked for our views.)
Reply
RE: morality is subjective and people don't have free will
(22nd May 2017, 17:21)SteveII Wrote: I have not changed my position one iota. 

Children are not taught how to be selfish, hurtful, disobedient, dishonest etc. yet they are. There is only one possible conclusion--they are born that way. 

Since in Christianity, we call those acts sinful, it follows: children are sinful. Sin is a description of an act/intention/or omission--and not a description of moral responsibility which is why I stated over and over that I do not think that young children are morally responsible for their actions.

I stated over and over that we (and nobody I know) teach young children that they are "tainted sinners". They get age appropriate explanations long after toddlerhood. If you find someone who did not give age appropriate information to the child, that simply calls into question good judgement--not doctrine.

Agree, born that way, by nature. Do they stay that way, no. And it's not because of christian religion. It's because their mind continues to grow and develop within society/culture. 

If they grow up in a non christian culture do they retain these behaviors, usually not. Christians, or any religion, does not the exclusive answer for raising/producing moral adults. Quite frankly, they seem to produce more fucked up adults but that's just my opinion.  

You may not think that they are morally wrong yet you label them as sinners. Sinning in the christian religion is bad. So the child is labeled bad. Stating that toddlers are sinners because they have not fully developed is just wrong. Telling them at a later date that their behavior as a toddler was sinful is just wrong. 

This process of indoctrination, viewing the child as bad and then saving the bad child/individual is no different than cult behavior.
God(s) and religions are man made and the bane of humanity. 

Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. Ozzy or Twain/take your pick
Reply
RE: morality is subjective and people don't have free will
(22nd May 2017, 20:25)Regina Wrote: Personally I struggle to understand the amount of atheists who talk about morality being subjective too

There are certain aspects of morality that are, but I think they concern smaller trivial things, like whether it's justified to be rude to people if you're having a bad day or if spending your own money on useless shit you want rather than need is ok. It can also concern what is considered to be the "correct" consequence for a certain action.

When it comes to bigger shit like murder, rape and child molestation though, those are pretty objectively fucking bad. I don't know how anyone can sit there and say there's any subjectivity on that, and that those things can be acceptable within the context of "culture" or a different "societal opinion". Are you going to willingly submit to your own murder and suddenly feel good about having a knife thrust into your stomach, because the person doing it to you thinks it's morally right? Ugh no.

I think it's a simple misunderstanding.  That moral disagreement exists is a fact.  This moral disagreement is subjective morality regardless of whether or not there is an objective morality.   

IRL, those points of contention often regard what is or is not any of those three things.  Just because moral disagreement exists, that doesn't mean I have to accept contradictory moral value judgements.  That's kind of why moral disagreement exists in the first place.  OFC I'm not going to submit to the societal opinion of some nutjob that bloodgod is righteously thirsty, but they do exist.
 “I can’t even go to a goddamn potluck without having to thank some space fairy for the broccoli casserole!” -Trae Crowder


Reply
RE: morality is subjective and people don't have free will
(23rd May 2017, 10:27)Mr.Obvious Wrote:
(15th May 2017, 13:58)Catholic_Lady Wrote: There's been a few threads recently about free will and morality, so my apologies for starting another one. The thing is, they got me curious about something so I wanted to ask you guys. 

So first of all, 2 things:

1. It seems many of you hold the opinion that morality is subjective. Meaning there is no real, set in stone, right or wrong. Basically, if one person thinks a particular act is good, and another person thinks that same act is bad, nether one of these 2 people is actually correct. It's all just a matter of opinion, like one person thinking red is the best color and another thinking blue is. 

2. It also seems many of you hold the opinion that people don't actually have free will. Their acts are purely a result of circumstances and are not freely chosen. Basically the person could not have acted any differently because their action was only a result of their own inherent nature and whatever circumstances put them in the position to commit that act.

So my question is this... for those who feel both these things are true - if there is no real right or wrong, and if people don't have the freedom to choose their behavior - then why do you get angry about people acting (or thinking) any certain way? After all, not only is there no right or wrong anyway, but these people don't even choose to act as they do. 

So how can you justify being angry at the person who rapes, kills, steals, lies, cheats, is conservative, is religious, likes Trump, IS Trump, etc etc? Am I missing something?

I basically agree with that there is no objective morality. And I don't believe in free will, only the illusion of free will. Basically, I think we think we experience free will while we don't really. But that just means it comes down to a difference in how we wish to determine a term, it doesn't really matter. The world is what it is. And if we are to call our actions 'truly free' or only 'seemingly free', that still won't change one bit about the reality we live in. We are still to be held accounteable for our actions, otherwise coexistance and order would be impossible.
My own subjective take on morality being different than that of any other person but similar to most does not diminish why I feel angry if someone does something I or the collective deems immoral. I don't see why it should. What exactly is the problem of me being angry at someone who murders my friend, for example? Or even a random stranger on the street? The murderer knows the consequences of his actions, the sorrow and pain and loss and loss of life it brings with... Yet does it anyway. The action and the results are still there. The person that did it still did it. Even if there is free will or not. My reaction will still be there. I don't have 'free will' choose how to feel either, so how is that a hurdle for this exactly? 

Also I feel obliged to say that if there is a God that is all-knowing, all-powerful and created this entire world and all the people in it, the belief in 'true free will' should be impossible too. If you believe in a deity like that and in free will, I think you probably hold contradicting views.

(P.S. I didn't go through the entire thread. Sorry if my points have already been mentioned. But then again, you asked for our views.)

I agree that free will is just an illusion. I believe more in nature than nurture, including when it comes to the formation of our character. A good example is risk appetite, which is greater in some than in others. Someone with zero risk appetite is not going to do something risky "by nature", while someone else does. From the outside it might look like free will, but the decision is already precast by our genes expressed in our emotions and feelings.
Reply
RE: morality is subjective and people don't have free will
(25th May 2017, 06:38)eggie Wrote:
(23rd May 2017, 10:27)Mr.Obvious Wrote: I basically agree with that there is no objective morality. And I don't believe in free will, only the illusion of free will. Basically, I think we think we experience free will while we don't really. But that just means it comes down to a difference in how we wish to determine a term, it doesn't really matter. The world is what it is. And if we are to call our actions 'truly free' or only 'seemingly free', that still won't change one bit about the reality we live in. We are still to be held accounteable for our actions, otherwise coexistance and order would be impossible.
My own subjective take on morality being different than that of any other person but similar to most does not diminish why I feel angry if someone does something I or the collective deems immoral. I don't see why it should. What exactly is the problem of me being angry at someone who murders my friend, for example? Or even a random stranger on the street? The murderer knows the consequences of his actions, the sorrow and pain and loss and loss of life it brings with... Yet does it anyway. The action and the results are still there. The person that did it still did it. Even if there is free will or not. My reaction will still be there. I don't have 'free will' choose how to feel either, so how is that a hurdle for this exactly?   BE

Also I feel obliged to say that if there is a God that is all-knowing, all-powerful and created this entire world and all the people in it, the belief in 'true free will' should be impossible too. If you believe in a deity like that and in free will, I think you probably hold contradicting views.

(P.S. I didn't go through the entire thread. Sorry if my points have already been mentioned. But then again, you asked for our views.)

I agree that free will is just an illusion. I believe more in nature than nurture, including when it comes to the formation of our character. A good example is risk appetite, which is greater in some than in others. Someone with zero risk appetite is not going to do something risky "by nature", while someone else does. From the outside it might look like free will, but the decision is already precast by our genes expressed in our emotions and feelings.

Good point. Though to me, nature vs nurture doesn't even come into play to us having free will or not. Even if it were 100% nurture, it wouldn't change things. If your previous experiences, conditioning, cultural upbringing... every single possible variable that has come into play regarding you up to the present would still determine your choice. Be it biological or sociological variables.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  How Long Does Someone Have to be Dead Before People stop Referring to them as Late? Rhondazvous 10 167 18th May 2017, 11:58
Last Post: vorlon13
  Have our lizard people overlords gotten lazy, or arrogant? CapnAwesome 5 169 19th March 2017, 13:19
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  A Way to Support Me FREE Book Offer Rhondazvous 9 237 14th March 2017, 03:13
Last Post: AceBoogie
  Acquaintances that want your work for free J a c k 35 795 11th March 2017, 13:34
Last Post: KUSA
  Real world example of "I don't even know what I don't even know" pool the matey 24 715 25th January 2017, 12:34
Last Post: KUSA
  AF "Mafia" Forum Game (PSA for people who have no idea what it is) Tiberius 29 587 4th January 2017, 09:11
Last Post: emjay
  Free to a good home. Expired 12 649 18th October 2016, 05:42
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  The land of the free! CapnAwesome 23 2411 25th December 2015, 21:54
Last Post: Hammy
  People try and sell the dumbest things. Nymphadora 69 4978 12th December 2015, 14:51
Last Post: vorlon13
  The Alaskan Bush People have it right. Nymphadora 27 2619 2nd December 2015, 21:42
Last Post: Nymphadora



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)